Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Making Boost Doc builds more robust
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-03 09:48:08

Daniel James wrote:
>> On 02/12/2008, John Maddock <john_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> Daniel James wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's already a ticket:
>>>>> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1399
>>>>>
>>>
>>>  OK, I have a "quickbook-fail-test" working so we can now test
>>> things that should be errors in quickbook.  Any pointers on how to
>>> best address the ticket?
>>
>> I'll do it. I think I know how and I'm trying to get a better idea of
>> how quickbook works.

OK, I've committed the changes to the quickbook testing Jamfiles - including 
two new "expected fail" tests which currently fail since quickbook doesn't 
return an error.  There are probably other things that should be included in 
the list of hard errors as well: I remember being caught out by invalid 
templates in the past (typo in the template name, or wrong number or args).

HTH, John.